Judgment :- Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order in G.O.3(D) No.138, Home (SC) Department, dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Government. The said impugned order is one passed by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, according sanction for the prosecution of the writ petitioner M.Noorudeen, formerly Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue Services, Southern Region, Madurai, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and for taking cognizance of the said offences by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 3. In respect of an order of deemed suspension made against the petitioner earlier dated 210. 2003, O.A.No.684 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in which the Tribunal by order dated 33. 2004 has set aside the order of deemed suspension. As against the said order of the Tribunal, the Government filed W.P.Nos.19083 of 2004 and 29080 of 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 22. 2007, has disposed of the writ petitions directing the Government, which was the petitioner in W.P.No.19083 of 2004, to conclude the criminal proceedings by passing final orders one way or the other, expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was also made clear in the said order that in the event of the Government not complying with the said condition, the Tribunals order setting aside the order of suspension will automatically revive and with the result, the petitioner was to be reinstated. 4. It appears that in the mean time, the petitioner has moved the Madurai Bench by filing Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4931 of 2004 for quashing the criminal proceedings and also filed Crl.M.P.(MD) No.1780 of 2004 and the Madurai Bench of this Court has granted an order of stay in respect of further investigation in Crime No.7 of 2003. Saying that the said stay order was not within the knowledge of the Government, the Government filed an application in M.P.No.117 of 2008 for extension of time, as granted by the Division Bench earlier in the order dated 22. 2007. While disposing of M.P.No.117 of 2008 in W.P.No.19083 of 2004, by order dated 28. Saying that the said stay order was not within the knowledge of the Government, the Government filed an application in M.P.No.117 of 2008 for extension of time, as granted by the Division Bench earlier in the order dated 22. 2007. While disposing of M.P.No.117 of 2008 in W.P.No.19083 of 2004, by order dated 28. 2008, the Division Bench had thought that there was no justification for the Government seeking for further extension of time on the basis that the Government should have taken steps to vacate the order of stay. However, on information from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who was the first respondent in M.P.No.117 of 2008 before the Division Bench, that as the Investigating Officer, who actually conducted investigation, against whom the petitioner was having certain apprehension, was no more and the petitioner would withdraw the criminal original petition itself, inasmuch as the investigation is carried out by some other Officer. Therefore, the Division Bench has granted time to the Government till 30.11.2008 as a last chance to comply with the earlier order dated 22. 2007, making it clear that no further extension of time shall be granted. 5. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and sanction from the Government was obtained under the impugned G.O. dated 30.12.2004. Thereafter, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4931 of 2004 filed before the Madurai Bench came up for final disposal. While disposing the original petition by order dated 29. 2008, this Court has passed the following order:- "5. This Court considered the submissions made by both sides. As already the Investigating Officer, against whom the allegations have been made, has been transferred and at present a new officer has been appointed as the Investigating Officer and sanction order has already been obtained in this case, the present investigating officer may go through the records, verify with the investigation and file the final report, if satisfied, or he is at liberty to conduct any further investigation, if necessary. This petition is ordered accordingly." 6. This order came to be passed for the reason that the original Investigating Officer against whom certain allegation of bias was made is no more, and one N.Kulotunga Pandian, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has taken charge as the Investigating Officer, this Court has directed that the new Investigating Officer should go through the records, verify the investigation and file the final report, if he is satisfied. 7. 7. It is the case of the respondents that the present Investigating Officer has in fact gone through the records and after verification, has also filed the final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai on 29. 2008. The contention of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that it is the duty of the respondents to prove before this Court that the new Investigating Officer has in fact gone through the records, verified the investigation and filed the report. The said submissions are not tenable. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not for this Court to assail the correctness of its own order, or the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. In any event, verification of such conduct of the Investigating Officer will only prejudice the fair trial, which is the ultimate goal of the criminal trial. 8. The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that when once the new Investigating Officer has verified the records once again as per the direction given by this Court, he ought to have obtained sanction from the Government before the filing of the report to the criminal court. The said submission is not sustainable for the simple reason that this Court, while disposing of the original petition, has not chosen to make any comment about the sanction order dated 30.12.2004, which was obtained earlier. If really it was the intention of this Court that re-investigation has to be done, then mandatorily, this Court would have set aside the earlier sanction order while disposing of the original petition. But the intention of this Court while disposing of the earlier petition was that, at the first instance, the Investigating Officer has to verify the investigation, go through the records and file the final report, if he is satisfied about the investigation already effected. It is further observed in the said order that the Investigating Officer is at liberty to conduct any further investigation, if necessary. The question of re-investigation will arise only in case the Investigating Officer makes up his mind on verifying the records that the investigation already done was not proper. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not as if the Investigating Officer was not satisfied about the earlier investigation. The question of re-investigation will arise only in case the Investigating Officer makes up his mind on verifying the records that the investigation already done was not proper. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not as if the Investigating Officer was not satisfied about the earlier investigation. Therefore, the question of getting the very sanction for re-investigation does not arise. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in this writ petition and it cannot be said that the original sanction order granted by the Government in the G.O. dated 30.12.2004 suffers from any illegality. 9. It is also informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the final report has been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, by the Investigating Officer on 10. 2008 and the Court has taken cognizance of the entire issue. Therefore, at this stage, there is no necessity to pass any further orders, which may affect the fair trial. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is no doubt true that this Court has not expressed any opinion or made any observations in the subject matter and needless to state that any such observation made by this Court will not bind the Criminal Court and the Criminal Court is expected to proceed with the trial in accordance with law without being influenced by the present order also. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.